A medical error, a judicial investigation that has remained on paper and the protection of the right to human life.

JUDGMENT 

Movsesyan v. Armenia 16.11.2017 (no. 27524/09)

see here  

SUMMARY 

Death of a pregnant woman. For the inadequacy of the investigation, the applicant accuses the authorities claiming that they did not do what they needed to investigate the death conditions of his pregnant daughter, rendering the tragic end to medical negligence (the ambulance arrived after 40 minutes, the doctor did not sit next her in the ambulance transport, administration of an inappropriate injection ). There was no prosecution even though the ambulance doctor was reprimanded for poor performance of his duties. The ECtHR found that the way in which the investigation into the conditions of death of the unfortunate woman was made constitutes a violation of Article 2 of the ECHR.

PROVISION

Article 2

PRINCIPAL FACTS

The applicant, Albert Movsesyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1948 and lives in
Yerevan. The case concerned his complaint that the investigation into the death of his
daughter – allegedly as a result of medical negligence – had been inadequate.

Mr Movsesyan’s daughter, K.M., born in 1985, was in the early weeks of pregnancy when, in the
evening of 7 September 2007, she fainted and began to have convulsions while at home with her
parents and husband. An ambulance was called, which arrived around 40 minutes later. The
ambulance doctor found K.M. nearly unconscious, with impaired breathing and low blood pressure.
The doctor gave her an injection of relanium and one of magnesium and took her to hospital. K.M.
died in hospital on 14 September 2007 without having regained consciousness.

On the same day, the district prosecutor’s office launched an inquiry into her death and ordered an
autopsy, which was also carried out on that day. According to the autopsy report, K.M. had died
from general intoxication of the organism, caused by an impairment of vital brain function, which in
turn had been caused by extensive and diffuse thrombosis of neuro-vessels. In the course of the
inquiry, the investigator questioned the medical personnel who had provided assistance to K.M. and
ordered a forensic medical investigation, which found that the injection of relanium and magnesium
had been correct. In February 2008, the investigator decided to reject the institution of criminal
proceedings.

Mr Movsesyan subsequently applied to the district prosecutor’s office, seeking a new forensic
medical examination in which he would be allowed to participate. He claimed that his daughter had
died as a result of negligence by the ambulance doctor, who had given her two injections of
substances whose administration was contra-indicated given K.M.’s pregnancy, impaired breathing
and low blood pressure. Moreover, the ambulance had arrived late and the doctor had not sat
beside the patient during the journey to the hospital. The prosecutor’s office quashed the decision
of February 2008 and remitted the case for further inquiry. An additional forensic medical report was delivered by a panel of experts in April 2008. It found, in particular: that the injection of relanium and magnesium had been correct in the circumstances; that the medical assistance provided by the ambulance crew had been appropriate and sufficient; and that a speedier transfer
to hospital could not have prevented K.M.’s death. The investigator again decided to reject the
institution of criminal proceedings.

Mr Movsesyan challenged that decision before the district court, maintaining that the panel of
experts had not taken due account of his arguments. His complaint was dismissed in May 2008. The
court referred to the forensic medical report and, concerning the late arrival of the ambulance and
the doctor’s failure to sit beside the patient, pointed out that in the meantime the doctor had been
reprimanded for poor performance of her duties. Mr Movsesyan’s appeals were dismissed.
Relying in substance on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights,
Mr Movsesyan complained that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into
his daughter’s death.

THE DECISION OF THE COURT 

Violation of Article 2

Just satisfaction: 12,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage(echrcaselaw.com editing). 


ECHRCaseLaw
Close Popup

Χρησιμοποιούμε cookies για να σας προσφέρουμε καλύτερη εμπειρία στο διαδίκτυο. Συμφωνώντας, αποδέχεστε τη χρήση των cookies σύμφωνα με την Πολιτική Cookies.

Close Popup
Privacy Settings saved!
Ρυθμίσεις Απορρήτου

Όταν επισκέπτεστε μία ιστοσελίδα, μπορεί να λάβει κάποιες βασικές πληροφορίες από τον browser σας, κατά βάση υπό τη μορφή cookies. Εδώ μπορείτε να ρυθμίσετε τη συγκατάθεσή σας σε όλα αυτά.

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources, so we can measure and improve the performance of our site.

Google Analytics
We track anonymized user information to improve our website.
  • _ga
  • _gid
  • _gat

Απορρίψη όλων των υπηρεσιών
Save
Δέχομαι όλες τις υπηρεσίες